Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1983

HL Deb 29 March 1983 vol 440 cc1491-4

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft scheme. The purpose of the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1983 is to make changes to the principal scheme—that is, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1983—as a consequence of the abolition of injury benefit from 6th April 1983. The amendment scheme also makes provisions similar to those in the industrial injuries scheme for Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme beneficiaries who go abroad.

The principal scheme provides for benefit to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund for disablement, or death, caused by certain diseases if they result from employment before 5th July 1948, and neither workmen's compensation nor benefit under the industrial injuries scheme is payable. Under the principal scheme, increases may be paid for dependent wives and children. These increases are related to what would be payable under the industrial injuries scheme to someone receiving injury benefit. But injury benefit is abolished from 6th April 1983, by the provisions of Section 39 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982. Therefore the principal scheme must be amended to change references to injury benefit to references to sickness benefit.

Your Lordships may care to note that Articles 3 and 4 of the amendment scheme which we have before us this evening amend Articles 5 and 6 respectively of the principal scheme by removing references to injury benefit and replacing them with references to sickness benefit. The changes are purely technical and do not affect—I stress this—the amount of benefit payable. Dependency benefits for wives and children will continue to be payable at the lower rates off £15.45 and 30p respectively. If the beneficiary is receiving unemployment supplement, he will still get the higher rates of £18.85 and £7.95 respectively.

We are also taking the opportunity in Article 2 to make good a deficiency in the scheme for beneficiaries who take the chance to leave the United Kingdom temporarily. Until 1975 there was provision for beneficiaries to continue receiving unemployment supplement, together with any increases for dependants, while they were abroad if they met certain conditions. These conditions were contained in industrial injuries regulations which were amended in 1975 with the result that provision for beneficiaries under the scheme in these circumstances was lost. In fact, no cases of beneficiaries receiving unemployability supplement who have gone abroad have arisen since then. With only 11 unemployability supplement cases under the scheme and an average age of 75, it is unlikely there will be cases involving absence abroad in the future. However, to cover the possibility, Article 2 in effect restores the position to that before 1975 for beneficiaries who leave the United Kingdom while receiving unemployability supplement whether or not they have dependants.

Article 2 also tidies up the provisions for beneficiaries receiving constant attendance allowance or exceptionally severe disablement allowance who go abroad. The article sets out the circumstances in which these two allowances will continue to be payable to beneficiaries outside the United Kingdom. Previously, the scheme cross-referred to the corresponding regulations governing industrial injuries claims. Again, there have been no cases affected by these provisions in recent memory and none is expected.

With that, I hope, brief explanation of this rather technical scheme, I beg to commend it to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th February be approved.— (Lord Lyell.)

5.32 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for setting out so clearly what is before us. I wish only to clarify one or two points. It is a question of making clear to those concerned what the Government have in mind. The draft scheme is an expensive piece of paper costing 75p. That is extraordinarily inflationary. Article 2 amending Article 4(4) of the principal scheme states in paragraph (b): a person shall not be disqualified from receiving an increase of allowance under article 8 by reason of being temporarily absent from the United Kingdom during the period of 6 months from the date on which such absence commences". I should like to ask the Minister this. If a man is going off to see his daughter who has been so unwise as to emigrate with an Australian and set up on the other side of the world—he perhaps wants to visit her and the grand-children—how does he know before he starts that he will be there for six months? Maybe his son-in-law cannot stand the sight of him. He may not like the weather. On the other hand, he may like it so much that he wants to stay. Is it the intention firmly to hold to the six months? I ask that question because the sentence goes on to say: or during such longer period as the Secretary of State may, having regard to the purposes of the absence and any other factors which appear to him to be relevant, allow". Does this mean that a person going abroad has to ask the Secretary of State? Does he ask the Secretary of State halfway through his stay? Or is he expected to ask the Secretary of State when he is on the way home? It is important that this matter should be made clear. Under paragraph (c) it is stated that a person shall not be disqualified from receiving an increase of allowance under Article 7"— without giving any duration. I assure the Minister that I am trying to be helpful. I am endeavouring to state what I would feel if I was a person in this position trying to read the draft statutory instrument. The explanatory note on page 3 states that the person concerned, is not disqualified from receipt of benefit during a temporary absence from the United Kingdom". There is no reference to the actual duration of "temporary". This must be confusing for people who do not know whether six months is temporary and how temporary is temporary. I am not raising these points from any adversarial position. I am merely trying to find out for those who may be concerned what they can expect. It is a serious matter for the individuals concerned. I hope the Minister will be able to make clear whether the explanatory note on page 3 has any connection with paragraphs (b) and (c) on page 2 and, if so, which takes priority.

5.36 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords would wish to thank the noble Baroness for her close scrutiny of this extremely complicated scheme. I am sure that the Official Report of your Lordships' House will wing its way, certainly to the Australian High Commission and I suspect eastwards. I am sure that the noble Baroness is doing great things for her own chances of acceptance in that happy land by her comments about the wisdom or otherwise of daughters of beneficiaries of these schemes heading for Australia. I hope that the airliners will not be decanting the noble Baroness or other persons over the Tasman Sea. The noble Baroness also gave major plugs for Australia, although I do not know the reasons, and for the telecommunications industry, when she mentioned how beneficiaries would be communicating with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and others. The noble Baroness was kind enough to give me preliminary warning. I shall try to assist as she has a point in asking for some definition of the words "temporarily absent" in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Article 2, which amends Article 4 of the principal scheme.

I understand that the reason for the provision of six months in paragraph (b) at the top of page 2 is largely historical. Until 1975, the increases in unemployability benefit, constant attendance allowance and the exceptionally severe disablement allowance all involved absence from the United Kingdom not exceeding six months. If it was any longer, it was at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In 1975 the specific term of six months was taken out of the provision for unemployability supplement which excepted temporary absence and included some other conditions that have not been adopted for this scheme now before us because of the age of the beneficiary and the fact that we understand that none of the 11 is likely to go abroad.

The definition of the word "temporarily" that appears in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is, I am afraid, not contained in the scheme. I understand that it is for the independent adjudicators to decide each individual case. There are only 11. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that all 11 beneficiaries should report tonight at various airports in the United Kingdom, that would indeed be a great tribute to her persistence and the news travelling from your Lordships' House.

I would stress to the noble Baroness that it is up to the two independent adjudicators to decide on what is "temporary" absence from the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness raised the point about when the beneficiary might change his or her mind when abroad. We do not necessarily take the extreme example of Australia. While the absence abroad of the beneficiary is expected to be temporary, the adjudicators may well decide that the conditions for benefit remain satisfied upon the claimant's statement before he—I am not too sure whether any of these 11 are ladies, but let us assume that they are all gentlemen—leaves the United Kingdom.

I hope that I have gone some way, if not all the way, in attempting to answer the question of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I would thank the noble Baroness and, indeed, all of your Lordships for listening with such care while I have attempted to deal with this extremely difficult order this evening. I believe that your Lordships will agree that we have said enough and for that reason I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.